Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Page: 1 of 6
Case: 14-12703
Page: 2 of 6
erred in determining that the general manager decided to terminate him before he
requested medical leave, rather than after; (2) his direct supervisors discriminatory
animus could be imputed to the general manager; and (3) Walter Coke should have
been precluded from arguing that it had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for
firing him. After thorough review, we affirm.
We review a district courts grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing
all evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving
party.
Summary
judgment is appropriate when the moving party shows that (1) there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact, and (2) the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). Once the moving party submits a properly
supported motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party must set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986) (quotation omitted). To show that there is a
genuine issue for trial, the non-moving party must present sufficient favorable
evidence for a jury to return a verdict in the non-moving partys favor. Id. at 249.
Under the FMLA, eligible employees are entitled to take unpaid leave
[b]ecause of a serious health condition that makes the employee unable to
perform the functions of [his] position. 29 U.S.C. 2612(a)(1)(D). A serious
2
Case: 14-12703
Page: 3 of 6
Case: 14-12703
Page: 4 of 6
reason for the adverse action. Id. Once the defendant presents a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff to show that the
defendants purported reason was simply a pretext for discrimination. Id. at 1244.
To establish a prima facie case of FMLA retaliation, the plaintiff must show
that (1) he engaged in statutorily protected conduct, (2) he suffered a materially
adverse action, and (3) the adverse action was causally related to the protected
conduct. Id. at 1243. The plaintiff may satisfy the causal connection element by
showing that the protected activity and adverse action were not wholly unrelated.
Krutzig, 602 F.3d at 1234 (quotation omitted).
establish that these events were not wholly unrelated by showing that the
decisionmaker was aware of the protected conduct at the time of the adverse
action. Id. Temporal proximity alone does not establish a causal connection when
there is unrebutted evidence that the decisionmaker was not aware of the protected
activity. Id. at 1235. Furthermore, other supervisors knowledge that the plaintiff
engaged in protected conduct may not be imputed to the decisionmaker in FMLA
retaliation claims. Id.
In other employment discrimination contexts, discriminatory animus may be
imputed to a neutral decisionmaker under a cats paw theory if (1) a supervisor
performed an act motivated by animus that was intended to cause an adverse
employment action, and (2) the act was a proximate cause of the adverse
4
Case: 14-12703
Page: 5 of 6
employment action. See Staub v. Proctor Hosp., 562 U.S. 411, ___, 131 S.Ct.
1186, 1194 (2011). A plaintiff may establish causation under this theory if the
decisionmaker either followed another supervisors biased recommendation
without independently investigating the complaint against the plaintiff or
conducted an independent investigation but relied on facts provided by the biased
supervisor. 131 S.Ct. at 1193; Stimpson v. City of Tuscaloosa, 186 F.3d 1328,
1332 (11th Cir. 1999).
Case: 14-12703
Page: 6 of 6
context because the undisputed evidence shows that the supervisor was uninvolved
with the termination process beyond reporting the complaint, and the general
manager conducted an independent investigation into the complaint.
Because
Rudy failed to establish a prima facie case under the FMLA, we find it unnecessary
to determine whether collateral estoppel would preclude Walter Coke from
asserting that it had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for firing Rudy.
AFFIRMED.